>> rose sa, when you said absolutely jay can they's spns in saying this was a terror attack, when last time, a week later after benghazi, victoria nuland from the state department refused to say that, isn't it fair at this point to say, it seems like look, it was election season, we don't need to have al qaeda, al qaeda names out there, al qaeda attacks out there, so let's not say that was the situation? >> i don't think it's fair. i think these situations are often really confusing, especially at first. you also dons want to get it wrong, say it's al qaeda and it turns out to be a mentally ill resident and you look like an idiot. erring on the side of caution is not a stupid thing to do. i wanted to echo something peter said, though. getting the balance between openness and safety right. if we want to make absolutely sure all of our diplomats are absolutely safe, we'd never let them leave washington, d.c. part of the name of the game is you're accepting some risk in order to get some benefits.